NEELANKANTASHIVACHARYA Vs. VIRUPAKSHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff, respondent 1 is defendant 1, respondents 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of defendant 2 and respondent 7 is defendant 3, the Charity Commissioner. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the Pattada Devaru of Muthina Kanthi Mutt situated in Bijapur Dist and for recovery of the properties belonging to the Mutt. Defendant of claims that he is himself the Pattadhikari and defendant 2 claims to be the previous Pattadhikari. The trial Court held that the plaintiff's the duly appointed Pattada Devaru but that the suit is barred by the prov sons of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that the installation of the plaintiff as Pattada Devaru is invalid. It also held that the first defendant is the successor duly nominated by Sivalingeswara, the previous Pattadhikari. It agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It accordingly confirmed the decree of the trial Court.

(2.) In the former State of Jamkhandi there is an ancient Mutt called 'Muthina Kanthi Mutt'. It has two subordinate Mutts-one at Jamkhandi and the other at Hosur. The Muthina Kanthi Mutt owns considerabit immoveable properties at Jamkhandi, Hosur and Janwad. There have been two Gurus of the Mutt-one known as Padadaiah who stays in the Mutt and the other known as Charanthi who moves about preaching and collects offerings and other perquisites from the devotees of the Mutt. There are five major Peetas of the Veerasaiva community founded by five Acharyas. The five Acharyas are said to have founded the Veerasaiva religion. Ekoramaradhya established the Mutt at Kedarnath in the Himalayas, Panditharadhya established the Mutt at Srisaila, Renukacharya also known as Revanasiddeswara established the Mutt at Belehalli, also known as Rambapuri, Murulpsiddeswara established the Mutt at Uijani and Viswaradhya established the Mutt at Kasi. These are the five Pancha Peetas through which the other Mutts trace their origin. The Mutina Kanthi Mutt owes allegiance to the Srisaila Peeta. Each of the five Pancha Peetas have their own Gctra and Sutra. There are two kinds of Mutts, Gurusthala Mutt and Virakta Mutt. There are three divisions in Gurusthala Mutts. Some have the Pattadhikari only, some have Charamurthi only and some have both Pattadhikari and Charamurthi. The Mutts can also be classified into Putravarga Mutt and Sishyavarga Mutt according to the mode of succession to the Peeta. In the Putravarga Mutt the Peeta is occupied by a member of the family of the Guru. In the Sishyavarga Mutt the successor need not necessarilv be a member of the family of the Guru. The Gurus of Puthravarga Mutt must te Maheswaras or Jangamas. The Muthina Kanthi Mutt is a Putravarga Mutt owing allegiance to the Srisaila Peeta. These facts are admitted. DW.22 has stated in his evidence that there are two offices of Charanthi and Pattada Devaru in the suit Mutt and for over hundred years different persons were holding the respective posts. He has also stated that the Charanthi of the Mutt has got to be a member of the family of the Gurus of the Muthina Kanthi Mutt and not an outsider and that PW.9, the Charanthi, and his people live in the other half of the suit Mutt. It is also in the evidence of DW.1 in CS.148/1928, marked as Ex 70, that there "are two offices of Padadayya and Charanthi in the suit Mutt since ancient times, that there are two different houses in Muthina Kanthi Mutt-one of Padadayya and another of Charanthiah.

(3.) It is necessary to set out the previous history of the litigations between the parties. There appears to have been rivalry between the Charanthi and the persons holding the office cf Padadayya for over a number of years. In the year 1857, one Ishtalingaiah was the Pattada Devaru and was succeeded by Virupakshiah in the year 1858. Virupakshiah died in 1903 and Shankariah (defendant 2) succeeded him. He continued as Padadayya till the year 1921. One Annadanaiah was the Charanthi in the year 1858. He was succeeded by Shivaputriah who died in the year 1890. Sivaputraiah was succeeded in 1895 by Andanaiah, a nominee and disciple of Sivaputraiah. Both Padadayya and Charanthi are required by the tenets of the faith to live a celibate hie but shankariah married in the year 1921 and became incompetent to hold the office of Padadayya. Andanaiah raised the contention that Shankariah had lost his right to continue as Padadayya by reason of his marriage and that the office of Padadayya became vacant. Shankariah had submitted an application to the Mamlatdar on 19-12-1927 stating that he had, before his marriage nominated Shivalingaiah, his brother, in the presence of the devotees of the Mutt at Jamkhandi as his successor and that on Shankaraiah's marriage, Shivalingaiah succeeded him as Padadayya and that the name of Shivalingaiah must be entered in the revenue records as Padadayya and holder of the properties which originally were in the name of Shankaraiah. Andanaiah objected to the application and contended that Shivalingaiah had not been validly appointed as Padadayya by Shankaraiah and that he had not acquired any rights to the properties in dispute. The Mamlatdar directed the parties to move the Civil Court and to obtain a declaration of the title of Shivalingaiah to the properties- Shankaraiah and Shivalingaiah then filed the suit No.148/28 against Andanaiah for a declaration that the Mutt property belonged to Shivalingaiah and that Shankaraiah had nominated him as his successor. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the nomination of Shivalingaiah was not proved. The appeal No.7/32 was filed to the Dist Court, Jamkhandi. against that decree. The appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. Then, Shankaraiah and Shivalingaiah filed SA. No.5/34 in the High Court of Jamkhandi. The High Court dismissed the appeal but the question whether Shivalingaiah was nominated by Shankaraiah as his 'Mari' or successor was expressly kept open. After the dismissal of SA. No.5/34, Andaman filed Suit No.508/34 against Shankaraiah and Shivalingaiah for a declaration of his title to the property and for possession of the same together with future mesne profits. The suit was resisted by Shankariah and Shivalingaiah contending that Shivalingaiah had been nominated by Shankaraiah as his successor or 'Mari' before his marriage and, therefore, Shivalingaiah was entitled to the property in suit. During the pendency of this suit, Shivalingaiah was alleged to have been installed on the Gadi by certain disciples or devotees of the Mutt and a record thereof was prepared. That record bore the signatures of as many as eighty devotees. It purported to state that Shivalingaiah had been appointed as 'Mari' in the past by Shankaraiah according to the custom of appointing the successor to the Jamkhandi Muthina Kanthi Mutt and that, accordingly, Shivalingaiah was made the "Patta Charanthadhikari" according to the custom of the Mutt consistently with Veerasaiva Dharma Sutra Vidhies and therefore Shivalingaiah should confer favour on the Bhaktas and exercise both Patta and Chara authorities of the Mutt. The trial Court dismissed Andanaiah's suit holding that the claim was barred by the law of limitation and an appeal was filed against that decree to the District Court. The District Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. In second appeal, the High Court of Jamkhandi set aside the findings of the lower Courts and held that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation and directed that the suit be remanded to the trial Court for hearing and disposal accordinding to law.